Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-11-15
"SPECULATORS."
THE VIRGINIA CASES IN THE SUPREME
COURT.
The Arguments Of conkling, Royal,
Chamberlain, and Tucker-hr.
Conkling Opens.
Especial telegram to the Dispatch.l


WASHINGTON, ID. c., November a.
The United States Supreme Court-room
was filed with spectators this afternoon
when, a little before 10 clock, the Virginia
hdbeas-corpus cases OF Attorney-uen-
eral Ayers and Commonwealth s-Attor-
neys Scott and McCabe were taken up,
and counsel were notified that the court
was ready to hear argument.
Ex-senator Roscoe Conkling opened Tor
the petitioners In speech Of twenty. or
thirty minutes, reviewing the proceealngs
which resulted In the fine and imprlsoh-
ment Of the petitioners. and malntalhlng a.
matter of law that the ection OF Judge bohu . "a,
unwarrauted and illegal and that the act OF the
Legislature Of Virginia Of May ~, 1885,, euthVr-
ling officers Of the state TO bring suits iot .ne
recovery Of taxes In money, notwithstanding tne
previous tender Of tax-receiyable coupons, Was was
an act fully within the States power. III could
not, Mr.. COnklng thought, be held 70 DC un ls
stiutOnal for state 10 provide TOT SUITS " iescl.
In Its own courts against citizens Wno hhl ~.
paid their taxes, and for q trial py Jury 70 tess
VirginiAis bonds as spectators who were trying
10 make large profit out OF their investment
They were not Taxpayers, but spectators, anu
Judge Bond had lent too ready an ear ~ I'LL ,hn,
plea. There was not In the act OF whlch lney
complained a single clause which dehlen ,ne
right 10 tender genuine coupons, but everything
20 conserve IL. ,
In conclusion, Mr.. Conkling said that his assoc
ciate, Mr. Tucker, would present other points,
and that II the Court should hold the law Which
these state officers were endeayorng 10 ehloiVe
10 be valid and constitutional enactment IL
would end the case. .,,,
MIR. ConklIng was followed by william l..
Royal, Of counsel for respondent and ire bond
holders, who declared That the act OF the fr-
ginia Legislature Of MAY i2, lSs1. was n scheme
Of spOliation aud robbery pure ana simple IL
was a plan for conforming all the coupons, gem
uine as well az spurious land no one Dut the
Legislature Of Virginia had ever asserted tna'
there was a single spurious coupon IN eAise-
ence), as counterfeit and then connsca-
ting them 10 the use OF the state Mr.. ROyall
reviewed in detail the history of the coupon.
crushing Legislation In virginia ana hs7elteu
that IL was evident that the manifest purpose OF
the last "cOupOn-crusher" was 10 MAKE II I'M
possible for holders OF coupons 70 provo thelr
genulnencss. to take them away from them on
the pretence that they were spurious, and mus
Ia c0ufi-cate them. lie defended tue action OF
Judge bont and declared that it was In precise
accordance with the action OF the United states
Circuit Court in Ohio in the case OF OSBORN r.
The Bank ooh Wheaton Reports, Where the
officers OF & at state were enioined from exc
cutting an unconstitutional law ani the STATE
Treasurer was committed aud imprisoned
for contempt OF the Courts order. Ihat
case, he said, was In every respect
Ike this one. 1t was c9nten1ed ny cou ii,
sci on the other side that this was suit
against the State, and therefore barred by tne
eleventh amendment 20 the Constitution. nc
maintained, however. that the action TO prevent
the states officers from carrying out an uh'Oh-
stltutonal law Was not an action against inc
state and that this point must be regarded as
finally settled by the decisions In Osborn rs mo
Bank, Poindexter "a. GrcenhOW, barry w.
Edmunds and a number OF other adlull-
Gated cases. I'm conclusion he declared NAV
the factions and dOines OF the virginia
authorities had but one purpose, ana uhAt
IL 10 destroy The rights of property IN nor cou-
f.rrft q ~
the Constitution of the United states ana
the solemn judgments OF this court IL Il
left for this court 10 say whcthor their arbitrhry
fiOn shall be the rule OF conduct in virginia,
or whether the same Federal law when Governs
in ali the other States OF this Union shall be SUD-
mitted % there -
Mr. Royal was followed by ex Governor ID. II.
Chamberlain, also Of counsel Tor respondent
| aud bondnOlders, who said that tho question
presented when stripped OF all DISCUSSES
aud reduced 10 its simplest statement was,
MAY a state officer be eniOined by nlted
states Circuit Court from doing what an
unconstitutional state stntutc directs MN To
dofn lie reviewed a long line OF decisions
bearing upon this question, ami a,sHrtel mat
they led inevitably 10 III Affirmative answer.
The ac. Of Nny -. 1871, he satj, l. Migrant aul
palpable violation Of the Constitution OF the
United states. It, enforcement will destroy the
yalue.o all tax-receivable coupons ana VIII eA-
pose the bondhOlders 10 the repayment OF money
I received for the .nle Of their coupons, ana Will
equally expo-e them 70 the destruction Of the
value OF IN Jse which they s;ill hold The re- rel
which is soughtis simply for the prevention oil
| the threatened wrong. not Tor the competing Oh
the doing Of any act or for control 10 any eNtrhl
OF the fiscal affairs Of tie state, nor for any IN
/ reference whalever with the political functions
Of the state. he suit Is not a suit against inc
| state within any Of the definitions or principles
/ stated In the decisions OF the court heretofore
] The case Il completely covered by the two great
/ cases Of Osborn rs. The Bank and PoindeXt ~.
| Grcenhow. The succession Of human events
seldom presents two cases more nearly icenil-
/ cal I'm principle than Osborn rs. The Bank and
/ tne present case, an Identity stronger ana more
/ controlling than any identity OF mere facts, ana
/ on toe authority OF that case We rest THIS.
Mr. Chamberlain was sharply questioned AT
/ Intervals from the bench-uaiticularly by the
! Chief Justice and Justice Miller. who seemed 10
/ be- surprised by some OF his statements ana po-
sitions.
Inc closing argument was made by Hon. John
| Randolph Tucker In behalf Of the petitioners
/ and the State. He cOntended that this was
in fact suit against the state. and ID Il ~ shch
/ IL was by virtue Of the eleventh anenli"ht 10
the Constitution null aud void lie reviewed
carefully and in detail the history Of {. adop-
| ton Of the eleventh amendment and declared
| that that amcndme twas an authoritative III
/ terpretatiOn OF the original Constitution. II was
! an imperative mandate 10 the judiciary not TO
| construe tueir Jurisdictions so a. 10 rntcria
suits against the States IL was recoil rom
| such a construction In the interests OF The m
/ munity Of member OF the Mon from being
/ implicated in n Federal court by any person
| whatever. II should be interpreted IN Ia.
yor Of immunity and 10 defeat every de-
vice which would destroy or Impair
! It. The Court should not see hot"
near an approach suit NAV take TO the fences
which constitute immunity, but how lar must
keep away, lest IL trench upon the sOyerci gnty ot
/ the states. Devices which 10 not assail directly
but which furtiyely aud adfoitly avoid thing
/ forbidden In form but do the thug SUBSTANTIAL ~
| I'm effect, mus. be condemned a. contrary TO It's
| true purpose and meaning.
I'VE hold, he said, THAT this IL an
/ INJUNCTION against the state in fact, because
It destroys an essential function Of the
state autonomy the p1rer N snf i's
dsbt0r in Us oicn court and By ns 0iCn officers.
| In suing her executive officer One Attorney
Z Genera) you sue her, YOU enioin her. Nhero
the mind and Will OF the state the Invisible
/ sovereign operate through the mind and Will
and according 10 the discretion OF it, officers
they are the state, AID must be 90 held, or the
| eleventh amendment means nothing"
| Mr. Tucker t1en considered the effect OF a
. tender Of coupons in payment OF taxes, aud
, ridiculed the idea that man could POKE INTO
the face OF the tax-cOllectOr a few coupons pos
| sibly spurious). bought from English specula-
, tors, aud then put I'll same coupons back IN MS
| pocket and claim that he had paid his taxes. III
he could do this he might lend the same cou-
| Ions 10 another Taxpayer, and the latter might
| pay his taxes by pOkiug thCm a second time IL 20
the face of the taX-cO,lectOr In this way the same
coupons might be used 20 pay hall the taxes OF a
| town. Atender OF coupons must, he con ended
be a CONTINUOUS tender. Coupons must be- held
In the possession OF the court ready a. any time
20 satisfy the claims Of the State In order thai the
/ tender should amount 20 anything Further
[ more the state nal perfect right To require the
tax payer who rendered such coupons 10 prove
their genuincness. and pending such proof %
I bring suit against him FOR the recovery Of the
amount OF the tax In money.
Mr. Iuckerwas still speaking when the court
I adjourned at o'clock.